Which 2500 do u have? is it a mobile cpu? If so they are really good overclockers and usually easily achieve 2.3GHz on air cooling (As long as its good).

This would run FS9 as good if not slightly better than the AMD 64 3200 as FS9 doesnt take full advantage od the 64bit cpu.

Thing with PC's is if you got the money always buy the best you can afford. Its a simple rule really as bits are always gonna go out of date fast.

I wouldn't choose that mobo myself.  I swapped from Via to nForce chipset mobo's a while back and found the nForce to be quiker (well to me they seem it) I would suggest one of thses : K8N Platinum nForce3 250 .  I know MSI make one not sure if there are other companies using the nForce3 chipset yet but there more than likely is.

I dont think socket 754 mobos gain much at all from using Dual channel with the ram so you could get 1gig on one stick if you wanted too, though I would suggest getting Low Latency ram as it works quicker than standard stuff.

You picked a good G/card its between that one and the 6800Ultra really.  I'm going for the Nvidia this time as I think as the drivers mature it will get better and better and it also has SM3.0 support built in (this is somthin to do with how games are programmed and if used higher FPS with no loss of IQ can be had)

Not had a Pentium for a while but from what I read if your a gamer then you want AMD64 at the moment, Pentiums are better and photo/video editing etc or summin like that.

Mobile cpus fit into desktops aswell, they use a lower fsb but can be clocked up really high by raising the fsb.  If you built the pc and specified that component you would obviously have it, but if you bought it pre-built then it is highly unlikely it will be a mobile cpu.

It runs FS 2002 not bad except when you get into high graphics areas like LAX or Seattle then the frame rate on that drops down to 10-15 frames per second. Other then that it runs around 22- 24.

On FS2004 it has never run any good. High Graphics areas like LAX  or again Seattle  the frames just drop right off to 1-4 frames a second. I can increase the frame rates by bringing  the sliders back but that usually only yields around 10 frames a second and then the secnery looks the pitts. 

If you get up to 30,000 ft. and you have clouds put in like cumulus the frames drop right off again to around 4-6 frames a second with no ground scenery showing.

Thankyou for your comments.

Pickup

Why I posted previously, is that I have an old AMD Athlon 1700.    I have 512 meg of ram, a GE Force 2 MX video card.

I recently upgraded my drivers to the 56.64 version.   I have no problems whatsoever with my FS9 - why should someone with a better spec'd set-up be having the problems he is mentioning ?       Don't necessarily blame Microsoft or the gear, is something else wrong ?

If every time I had a problem with my computer over the last 12 years, I had thrown it out and bought the latest "answer"
I would be living on the streets.    

If you cannot run MS9 on the gear that  PICKUP is talking about the whole ballgame would have been thrown out and have become a laughing stock.

My first thoughts were the same as Birdman's, just go for the graphics card and see if you like it. If not, you can go further.

4 Frames / Second is quite normal on your rig with high graphics settings and complex scenery etc in FS9. I know because I had a similar setup and there was nothing "wrong" with it. You should be seeing a lot better "average" FPS though, between 18 and 25 FPS with a few tweaks.

As far as my research shows, the socket 754 64bit mainboards don't even have Dual Channel Ram configuration, so forget the ram kit, as it's too expensive that way. A good quality module is fine.

As far as CPU utilisation, I overclocked my XP 2800+ to a XP 3300+ (equivalent, about 380mhz on the front side bus speed - normal 333mhz) and my rig showed 100% utilisation while running FS9.

The advantage with the 64bit systems at the moment is basically the increased bandwidth (computing power) due to a very fast "front side bus" speed compared with AMD's 32bit systems. The software isn't going to be 64bit for quite a while, nor is current software going to push the enormous bandwidth in modern systems to the limit.

You don't specify your current mainboard, but it's likely that it will support a much faster CPU, as fast or faster than your planned upgrade! Also, the price of a new cpu for your current rig is low by comparison. I just did a similar upgrade to a new "Thorton" core XP2800+ and found it easily overclocks to an XP3200+ and it runs fine and cool while flying FS9. That was a very inexpensive CPU solution. You need mainboard support for that though.

Another CPU solution could be a more expensive 400mhz FSB speed XP chip on your current rig, which currently runs at 333mhz fsb speed. You need mainboard support and your ram needs to be PC3200 (400mhz - to make it worthwhile) for that though, so check first.

I've based the above statements on the assumption that you have a correctly set decent chipset (ie. mainboard) in your rig. It's possible you have a substandard chipset and/or some configuration errors.

In the case of someone with an outdated PC, I would recommend the 64bit upgrade route, but, yours may be fine for a while to come. How about posting your Mainboard details?

Remember, the graphics card upgrade alone should get  you at least 3 or 4 times the performance you are getting now.

If you want all the sliders maxxed and 100% AI, minimum 1280x1024 res though 1600x1200 preferred, and the use of FSAA and AF , which I think is a must in FS, then I dont think any of the current, i.e. 9800xt or 5950Ultra will do it. 

In this situation the more graphics power you have the better.  Its between the X800 XTPE or the FX6800Ultra.  I got an order in for the 6800 Ultra just sat witing for it  been waiting far to long though! These cards are like gold dust at the moment.

Do you have any idea about the power of you're PSU? You would probably need a minumum of about 400W.

Quote:

I think you could if you had a clean OS install, no network, internet, viruses, spyware, worse (project AI)  T&G though!

http://www.lavalys.com/products/overview.php?pid=1&lang=en&pageid=1
Everest, (formally Aida32) will tell you exactly whats in you're box.

Be aware that Aida32 and similar programs may not show you "exactly" what's in your box. The only way to be sure is to actually get the identity off the mainboard itself, together with any revision number.

Aida32 will show you what to look for!

Basically, mainboard ID's nowadays are much easier to find than in the past. They might have the manufacturers name printed on the board, or their abbreviation. There will also be an aplha-numerical code giving hints as to the chipset used.

For example:

SL-75FRN2-L ..... is Soltek nForce2 Ultra 400 chipset with onboard LAN........... nVidia nForce2 chipsets are AMD specific. This chipset supports 400mhz FSB processors.

A7V8X ..... is an ASUS motherboard sporting the Via KT400 chipset and 8x AGP standard. Despite it's name, it was designed to run AMD XP CPU's on a 333mhz Front Side Bus speed and not the later 400mhz ones. It does support PC3200 - 400mhz ram modules.